TOWARD A POSTCOLONIAL SOCIOLOGY: THE VIEW FROM LATIN AMERICA

Jose ́ H. Bortoluci and Robert S. Jansen

ABSTRACT
While sharing fundamental similarities with other colonial and post- colonial experiences, Latin
America has a unique history of having been the proving ground for early Spanish and Portuguese
imperial projects, of having experienced a relatively long duration of – but also historically early
end to – these projects, and of negotiating a particular and complex trajectory of internal and
external post-colonial relations. What can the study of this distinct colonial and post-colonial
experience contribute to a broader program of postcolonial sociology? Conversely, what can a
revitalized postcolonial sociology contribute to the study of Latin America? This article develops
provisional answers to these questions by reviewing major currents in South and North American
scholarship on the Latin American colonial and post-colonial experience. Some of this scholarship
self-consciously identifies with broader movements in post- colonial studies; but much of it – both
historical and contemporary – does not. By bringing together diverse strands of thought, this
article sheds new light on what postcolonialism means in the Latin American context, while using
the comparative leverage that this set of often overlooked cases provides to contribute to a new
program of postcolonial sociology.

INTRODUCTION
While a set of prominent Latin Americanist scholars have devoted their careers to tackling the
problem of post-colonialism (e.g., Coronil, 1997, 2000; Dussel, 1995, 2000; Quijano, 1980, 2000),
the Latin American colonial and post-colonial experience remains only partially integrated into the
broader field of postcolonial studies. With the widely accepted consecration of
Edward Said, Gayatri Spivak, and Homi Bhabha as the founders of the field, the most recent wave
of postcolonial scholarship has tended to focus on contexts of more recent decolonization –
especially those of British, French, and US colonialisms in Africa, the Middle East, and South Asia –
leaving scholarsofLatinAmerica,atbest,uneasypartnersintheconversation. This
inadvertent marginalization of the Latin American experience has been
codified through the region’s conspicuous underrepresentation in general
anthologies and popular introductions to postcolonial studies (e.g., Ashcroft, 3
Griffiths, & Tiffin, 2006; Gandhi, 1998; Young, 2003). Such neglect is surprising, given the
important contributions that Latin American critical scholarship has made to other 20th century
discussions of imperialism, dependency, and Third-Worldism (e.g., Cardoso & Faletto, 1979 [1968];
Castells, 1973; Maria ́ tegui, 1995 [1928]; Prebisch, 1950).
No doubt various intellectual and disciplinary dynamics have contributed to Latin America’s
relatively low profile in postcolonial studies – not least, the fact that many Latin American scholars
rarely publish in English. But there is also a first-order reason for the partiality of intellectual
integration: the specificities of Latin America’s colonial history. In a number of respects,
colonialism and post-colonialism unfolded differently and had different historical consequences in
Latin America than in other world regions. This historical reality has hindered the integration of
the Latin American colonial experience into the broader postcolonial dialogue, while posing
serious challenges to the mechanical application of existing postcolonial critiques to the Latin
American cases. This article highlights the distinctiveness of the Latin American experience in an
effort to transform what has heretofore been an intellectual stumbling block into a productive
source of creative friction.
Furthermore, this article provides a conceptual baseline for a productive conversation between
postcolonial studies and the recent sociology of Latin America. It does this by outlining some key
contributions of postcolonial studies and identifying generative resonances with the work of
sociologists studying Latin America. In this way, it parallels efforts in the humanities to apply
postcolonial frameworks to Latin American societies (see especially Thurner & Guerrero, 2003).
This article thus sheds light on what ‘‘postcolonialism’’ means in the Latin American context, while
taking advantage of the comparative leverage provided by this set of often overlooked cases to
contribute to a new program of postcolonial sociology.
This article does not aim to provide a comprehensive review of the sociology of Latin America or a
new postcolonial paradigm for the study of the region. Neither does it endeavor to provide a
systematic history of ideas or a sociology of intellectual fields. Rather, it is motivated by two basic
questions. First, what can the study of Latin America’s colonial and postcolonial experience
contribute to a broader program of postcolonial sociology? And second, what can this postcolonial
sociology contribute to the study of Latin America? We develop provisional answers to these
questions by reviewing major currents in South and North American scholarship on the Latin
American colonial and post-colonial experience.
As much of the best of this literature does not explicitly engage with postcolonial studies per se,
we must begin by attempting to identify the fundamental principles of a sociologically informed
postcolonial perspec- tive – that is, of a sociological perspective that is loosed from colonialist
ways of thinking – regardless of how that perspective might be rhetorically signaled. Then, as
some Latin Americanists have engaged directly with discussions of postcolonialism, our next step
is to highlight the distinct contributions of this postcolonial Latin American scholarship. In the
remainder of the article, we explore three other domains of social-scientific research on post-
colonial Latin America – focused on economic develop- ment, politics, and collective identities –
that we believe share important points of resonance with a broader program of postcolonial
sociology.
THE LATIN AMERICAN COLONIAL EXPERIENCE
Before engaging with the challenges of postcolonial scholarship, we must first consider the
distinctiveness of Latin America’s colonial and post-colonial experience. Our purpose here is
neither to reaffirm old theses about the exceptional character of Latin America, nor to align
ourselves with Latin American intellectuals who deny the relevance of the postcolonial critique to
the history of the continent (Klor de Alva, 1995). Rather, our intent is to highlight the enormous
historical variation that is often swept under the rug by the overarching concepts of ‘‘colonialism’’
and ‘‘post-colonialism.’’ Although cross-regional similarities matter, it is important that a revived
postcolonial sociology avoid the tendency to run roughshod over distinct historical experiences –
simply replacing old colonial visions of universal history with a new ‘‘postcolonial universalism’’
(Thurner, 2003, p. 24). Rather, a robust postcolonial sociology must be both critical of the global
dimensions of imperialism and, at the same time, concerned with variation in the forms of
colonialism and post-colonial development. Recognizing the particularities of Spanish and
Portuguese colonialisms in the New World helps to explain the relative lack of attention that
postcolonial theorists have paid to Latin America (see Thurner, 2003, pp. 18–25).
Recent work on comparative colonialisms has highlighted three funda-
mental axes along which colonial experiences may vary, and considering
these is instructive for understanding the specificities of Latin American
history. First, the Latin American colonial experience was shaped by the
distinct nature of Spain and Portugal’s imperial projects. Scholars debate
which characteristics of these projects were in the end most consequential;
but along the way, they have identified a range of unique features. These
include the importance of Catholicism, the distinctiveness of Iberian
legal traditions and mercantilist policies, lower levels of racial and ethnic
closure due to fetters upon representative government, and the coupling of
higher levels of state control with low levels of bureaucratization on the
ground (de Holanda, 2006 [1936]; Hiers, s.d.; Mahoney, 2010, pp. 22–24; 4
Tannenbaum,1946;Wimmer,2002). Considerationsofgeopoliticaltiming and competition are also
crucial: Latin American colonialism began early, lasted for over 300 hundred years, and began to
unwind as Spain and Portugal confronted the increasing imperial might and international
projection of other European states – especially France and England. Second, Latin America’s
colonial experience was conditioned by the characteristics of its subjugated societies and
territories – and by colonial authorities’ perceptions of these. Latin America’s formidable terrain
itself made transportation and communication incredibly difficult for Spanish and Portuguese
colonial authorities – especially during the first two centuries of colonization – which only further
contributed to the margin- alization of colonial hinterlands (Weber, 2005). At the same time, some
recent studies have drawn connections between the levels of social organization of pre-colonial
societies and the types of imperial policies pursued (Lange, Mahoney, & vom Hau, 2006; Mahoney,
2010); and others have explored how colonial authorities’ distinct perceptions of indigenous and
African slave populations provided elaborate justifications for labor exploitation and political
exclusion that later impacted the assimilation of marginalized populations into newly independent
nation states (Loveman…)
Finally, the social, political, economic and cultural legacies of colonial domination in Latin America
have been distinctive. Throughout the 19th and 20th centuries, the former colonies have
negotiated particular and complex trajectories of internal and external post-colonial relations,
especially given their entrenched dependency upon the exportation of primary products and the
strong influence of Great Britain and the United States over their domestic and foreign policies
(Furtado, 1977; Gootenberg, 1993). One area of particular interest is the relationship between
colonialism, on the one hand, and post-colonial political institutions and racialized policies on the
other (Fredrickson, 1988; Sanjine ́ s, 2004; Thurner, 1997). Despite these differences, however, it is
necessary to remember that Latin American colonialism still shared fundamental similarities with
other colonialisms. First, it clearly conformed to what Steinmetz (2007, p. 28, 2008, p. 591) has
referred to as the ‘‘sovereignty criterion’’ – that is, it involved an imperial power’s seizure of
political authority in a foreign territory. Second, it operated in keeping with the ‘‘rule of difference
criterion’’ (Steinmetz, 2007, p. 36, 2008, p. 593; see also Chatterjee, 1993), according to which an
imperial state treats the indigenous populations of a conquered territory as fundamentally inferior
(Quijano, 2000; Silverblatt, 2004). Third, the peripheral position occupied by Latin America at the
onset of the colonial enterprise (in the 15th and 16th centuries, as the modern capitalist world
system was being constituted) foreshadowed in important respects the position later occupied by
other colonized regions, as European states sought new markets and sources of raw materials for
the development of their growing industrial economies (Blackburn, 1998).
With these considerations of similarity and difference in mind, it becomes
possible to consider the ways in which Latin America might figure into broader discussions of
postcolonialism. But before engaging with substantive treatments of the Latin American
experience, it is first necessary to distill the core principles of a sociologically informed postcolonial
perspective.
TOWARD A SOCIOLOGICAL POSTCOLONIAL PERSPECTIVE
For better or worse, many scholars of colonial and post-colonial Latin America – especially social
scientists – are put off by postcolonial studies and would hesitate to have their work considered
under the heading. The ongoing tendency of much of the interdisciplinary field of postcolonial
studies to identify with a strong post-structuralist program (e.g., Mignolo, 2002; Young, 1990) has
prompted many social scientists to criticize its lack of sociological depth – or simply to avoid it
altogether. At the same time, many in postcolonial studies have remained suspicious of the social
sciences, which they frequently accuse of ‘‘positivism’’ and complicity with other ‘‘colonialist’’
modes of knowledge production (e.g., Mignolo, 2002; Spivak, 1988). Yet despite such mutual
distrust, we argue that there are resonances between many of the points advanced by
postcolonial theorists (at least by those who have not embraced radical deconstructionism) and
those suggested by sociologists devoted to the study of post-colonial societies. We propose that it
is useful for sociologists to take seriously the critical questions raised by postcolonial studies; but
also that postcolonial studies stands to benefit by considering recent social scientific scholarship
on post- colonial societies.
Our effort to foster conversation between Latin America and other world regions – as well as,
inevitably, between the social sciences and the humanities – is complicated by the lack of a
common conceptual vocabulary. While not employing an explicit language of ‘‘postcolonialism,’’
many scholars of Latin America have developed analyses and perspectives that are in many ways
compatible with those advanced by postcolonial theorists. Thus, in order to foster dialogue, it is
necessary to look beyond use of the term ‘‘postcolonial’’ and to focus instead on the ideas and
phenomena under consideration. This requires specifying what we mean by a sociologically
informed postcolonial perspective. We argue that such an
intellectual project can be distilled into four main points of analytical emphasis

1. Questioning the conflation of modernity with the West

Perhaps most fundamentally, postcolonial theorists have questioned the

automatic and thoroughgoing conflation of modernity with the West (Hall, 1992).
Traditionally, ‘‘the West’’ has signified a form of life composed of high development,
industrialization, urbanization, capitalism, secularity, and modernity (Hall, 1992, p. 277). According
to such a view, the ‘‘modernity/non-modernity’’ dyad thus corresponds to a ‘‘West/rest’’
opposition (Sayyid, 2003, pp. 101–102), collapsing space and time to produce an image of a so-
called western experience that can then form a basis for further theoretical formulations – not the
least of which is a normative master narrative of modernization from which non-western
societies represent discouraging deviations (Chakrabarty, 2000, p. 29). The
consequence of such a theoretical starting point is, of course, that moderni-
zation becomes synonymous with westernization (Kaya, 2004, p. 50).
Instead, postcolonial theorists have called attention to the fact that this
Eurocentric imagination of modernity and westernization is an ideological
project – or a discursive formation (Hall, 1992; Said, 1979) – that should be studied in its own right.
A postcolonial sociology should avoid such theoretical conflation and instead take the resulting
ideological formation as an important object of critical social analysis.

2. Provincializing the European experience

An immediate consequence of questioning the West/modernity conflation is what Chakrabarty
(2000) has referred to as the ‘‘provincialization of Europe.’’ When Eurocentric discourses identify
modernity with the West, they in effect provincialize non-western social realities – making them
out to be idiosyncratic deviations from an ideal (European) historical standard. A postcolonial
perspective endeavors to break with the spatiality and temporality of such discourses,
simultaneously de-provincializing the histories of post-colonial (and other peripheral) societies
while in turn provincializing the European historical experience. More concretely, this means
questioning narratives that grant to a supposedly autonomous Europe sole credit for the historical
elaboration of ‘‘modern’’ institutions and describing western colonial and post-colonial
‘‘modernization’’ projects as involving some form of – usually precarious – transference. The
provinci- alization of Europe thus contributes to a denaturalization of Eurocentric modernization
narratives and points instead to the need to understand the historical specificities and
interconnectedness of contemporary societies – both central and peripheral.
3. Advancing a macro-relational approach to social dynamics
The analytical consequence of breaking down the West/modernity dyad and privincializing Europe
is that a macro-relational approach to social dynamics – one that shifts the focus from self-
contained ‘‘national’’ units to relations between and among peripheral and metropolitan societies
– becomes essential. Hall (1996, pp. 249–251) and Dussel (1995) have argued convincingly that,
after the first colonial contact between Europeans and the American peoples, any treatment of
the European experience that attends only to the historical unfolding of events within Europe (in
its supposed isolation) will inevitably produce incomplete explanations of the economic, political,
and cultural processes under study (see Bhabha, 1994, p. 355, on Foucault’s critique of Nazi
racism, which ignores the interconnectedness of metropolis and colonies in the development of
modern apparatuses of domination). Postcolonial studies has emphasized instead the need to
focus on the relationships between societies of the metropolitan core and the colonial periphery –
as well as among these – in the context of modern capitalist and colonial systems (Go,
forthcoming; Hall, 1992; Steinmetz, 2003). Such relational thinking not only poses a challenge to
the conceptualization of modernity as a European project, but also to different forms of
‘‘methodological nationalism’’ (Wimmer & Glick-Schiller, 2002) that, among other things,
commonly treat colonizer and colonized as discrete entities. In this way, a sociologically informed
postcolonial perspective redefines the units of analysis of modernity, from the nation- state to the
domain of international and transnational macro-social relations among states and various sub-
state actors (Go, forthcoming; Hall, 1996, pp. 249–251).
4. Writing history from the colonial margins
An even stronger postcolonial position suggests that not only is it important to focus on macro-
social relations, but it is necessary to attempt to write history from the periphery in – that is, from
the perspectives of those marginalized by the colonial experience. By foregrounding the
inequalities of power and diverse forms of violence that have constituted colonial and post-
colonial histories, some postcolonial scholars have tried to elaborate a new critique of modernity
from the margins of colonial world relations. These scholars have endeavored to restructure
general theories of modernity by attending to the historical experiences of social groups who had
been written out of traditional Eurocentric histories. Such a project is clearly evident in the late
work of Edward Said (especially Said, 1994), in which he asserts the need to recover the voices of
colonial writers; in the early works of many ‘‘subaltern’’ historians (see Chakrabarty, 2000, 2002;
Chatterjee, 1993; Guha, 1983; Prakash, 2000); and in the work of those identified with British
cultural studies (e.g., Gilroy, 1993). While too narrow a focus on ‘‘writing from the margins’’ runs
the risk of neglecting the broader macro- relational context – and of reifying the ‘‘colonial archive’’
(Chakrabarty, 2000; Spivak, 1988) through attempts to rewrite a purified history of subaltern
actors (Domingues, 2009) – this critical project clearly resonates with the other three elements of
a sociologically informed postcolonial perspective already identified.

LATIN AMERICANIST POSTCOLONIAL STUDIES

How, then, have scholars of Latin America addressed the postcolonial challenge? Some – often
from humanities positions in US universities – have engaged explicitly with postcolonial theory,
attempting both to reread Latin American history through the critical lens of postcolonial studies
and to extend the postcolonial intellectual program through a consideration of the region’s
distinctive history. In analyzing the colonial roots of Latin American post-colonial society and
culture, in dialogue with postcolonial theories, these scholars have attempted to unpack – and to
criticize – what they consider to be the Eurocentric aspects of western social science.
The four postcolonial principles discussed above were in many ways
already present in Latin American social scientific thought before the birth
of postcolonial studies. Thinkers such as Jose ́ Martı ́ , Jose ́ Carlos
Maria t́ egui, Gino Germani, Florestan Fernandes, Leopoldo Zea, and
Edmundo O’Gorman, for example, dedicated most of their careers to the
development of comprehensive interpretations of the histories of Latin
American societies that took very seriously the problem of ‘‘colonial
difference’’ and that, at the same time, served to critique the popular and
sociological discourses of modernity that had been developed with reference to Europe.

In the 1960s and 1970s, these intellectual traditions were reinvigorated by new Latin American
intellectual, artistic, and political movements – and by the era of decolonization around the world
– and crystallized in a series of important theoretical innovations.
Such theories, which had enormous influence in Latin America and abroad (Domingues, 2009;
Lander, 2000, p. 519), represented major attempts to break with Eurocentric discourses of
modernity well before the more recent emergence
of postcolonial studies.
In this sense, the new postcolonial theorists of Latin America (or theorists
of ‘‘modernity/coloniality,’’ as many of them understand themselves [Lander, 2000; Maldonado-
Torres, 2004; Mignolo, 2007; Quijano, 2000]) have been as much a part of a long and continuous
history of critical theory on the continent as they were influenced by recent developments in (non-
Latin Americanist) postcolonial studies. While wrestling with the new theoretical challenges of the
late 20th century – especially a desire to bridge post-structuralist and Marxist approaches – this
recent scholarship has used Latin America as a platform for advancing a critique of the discursive
bases of Eurocentrism and for situating these discourses in the history of modern capitalism. And
by developing a postcolonial critique grounded in Latin American history, these writers have
highlighted the limits of a postcolonial theory centered exclusively on the African, Middle Eastern,
and South Asian colonial experiences.
Despite the breadth and the theoretical diversity of this recent Latin American postcolonial
scholarship, we believe that it is possible to identify five potentially important contributions to the
broader enterprise of postcolonial sociology. First, Latin American postcolonial scholars have
demonstrated that neither the Eurocentric imaginary nor the material relations of colonial power
were exclusive products of the 18th century. Rather, these had their roots much earlier, in Spain
and Portugal’s 16th century establishment of colonial control over the indigenous populations of
the New World and peoples who had been forcibly imported from Africa (Dussel, 2000, p. 47). The
neglect of this ‘‘first modernity’’ (Coronil, 2000; Dussel, 1995; Mignolo, 2000b) by postcolonial
scholars was, to Latin Americanists, a critical oversight; and in taking this first modernity into
account, postcolonial scholars of Latin America have underscored the region’s central role in the
development of a new system of colonial power relations (Quijano, 2000).
Second, following Foucault and influenced by the work of Said and other postcolonial theorists,
Latin American scholars have highlighted the role of representational and discursive practices in
reproducing post-colonial domination. Quijano (2000), for example, has advanced the notion of a
‘‘coloniality of power’’ to describe the cultural and racial classification systems – and the
institutions and spaces responsible for enacting and enforcing these – that were established in the
colonial era. Associated particularly with slavery and other forms of compulsory labor, these
classificatory systems constituted a cultural dimension of early capitalism (see also Domingues,
2009, p. 117). According to Quijano (2000, p. 54), this ‘‘coloniality of power’’ was first developed in
the Americas. Although in principle the concept shares much in common with Said’s (1979) notion
of ‘‘Orientalism,’’ Latin Americanists have argued that Said’s formulation inadvertently excludes
the Latin American experience by focusing attention on the categorized (the ‘‘Orient,’’ as a
geographical entity and discursive construction). Coronil suggests that it is more appropriate to
shift attention from the objectified to the objectifying colonizer, coining the complemen- tary term
‘‘Occidentalism’’ (Coronil, 2000, pp. 89–90; see also Rodrı ́guez, 2001, pp. 8–9). By elaborating the
concepts of ‘‘coloniality of power’’ and ‘‘Occidentalism,’’ scholars of Latin America have
highlighted the fact that modernity is inseparable from various forms of colonial violence – both
material and ideational (e.g. Mignolo, 2007, p. 477).

Toward a Postcolonial Sociology: The View from Latin America 209

Third, and related to the previous, Latin American postcolonial scholars have recovered the idea
that the colonization of the Americas played a crucial role in the constitution of modern capitalism
beyond just the so- called primitive accumulation of capital. They have noted that much more than
capital was ‘‘accumulated’’ in the colonization process, identifying in particular various techniques
of control derived from new modalities of Eurocentric knowledge. Colonial exploitation at the
origins of modern capitalism contributed to the development of specific forms of knowledge,
concepts of identity, modes of social categorization, and systems of hierarchy – particularly the
racialized systems developed for the exploitation of Native Americans and Africans in the colonies
– that would ultimately have effects well beyond the localized exchanges between colonizer and
colonized (Mignolo, 2000a, 2000b; Quijano, 2000; Thurner, 2003). Indeed, modern techniques of
control that were first developed in the Latin American colonies – such as those implemented on
sugar cane plantations in Brazil and the Antilles (Mintz, 1985; Mitchell, 2000, p. 8) – would become
central elements of political and economic practice in modern societies worldwide.
Fourth, in dialogue with psychoanalysis (but also with the work of Frantz Fanon, W.E.B. Du Bois,
and Martin Heidegger), Latin American postcolonial thinkers have highlighted the importance of
the colonial experience for shaping the early modern European self, as well as the subjectivities of
colonized peoples. The idea of ‘‘America’’ – and especially conceptions of the indigenous and
African populations of the Latin American colonies – represented a fundamental ‘‘other’’ for the
constitution of European civilization from the 15th through the 18th century (Dussel, 2000;
Mignolo, 2000b). On the one hand, the recognition of this fact represented a critique of European
thinkers from Hegel to Habermas, who narrated the history of modernity as a consequence of
internal European events and processes detached from the relations between European states
and peripheral societies (Dussel, 2000). On the other, it highlighted the problem of ‘‘colonial
difference’’ that, according to Mignolo (2000a, 2000b), characterized the historical relations
between Latin American subjects and the European or ‘‘modern’’ cultural projects that they
encountered. Mignolo (ibid.) has elaborated on such critiques, while drawing on the work of Du
Bois and Indian subaltern scholars, to advance a theory of the ‘‘double consciousness’’ of
colonized subjects, in which such a consciousness is the subjective manifestation of the condition
of the colony as simultaneously modernity and difference.

́
210 JOSE H. BORTOLUCI AND ROBERT S. JANSEN
Finally, in an effort to push beyond the Eurocentric colonial imaginaries of Occidentalism,
postcolonial scholars of Latin America have attempted to elaborate their own form of ‘‘decolonial
thinking’’ (Maldonado-Torres, 2002; Mignolo, 2002, 2005, pp. 189–190). These scholars have
argued that a ‘‘decolonization of knowledge’’ – the development of a political ‘‘counter-
epistemology’’ of modernity derived from the social experience of coloniality (Lander, 2000;
Mignolo, 2007) – is a necessary first step in trying to recreate a non-Eurocentric social science.
Mignolo’s (2000b, 2004) concept of ‘‘border thinking’’ simultaneously affirms the irreducibility of
the colonial experience, while also allowing for the incorporation of different traditions of western
critical theory – especially Marxism and post-structuralism (see Domingues, 2009). The
development of such a critical-syncretic theoretical framework is in keeping with the colonial
experience of ‘‘double consciousness,’’ insofar as the colonized is both part of the modern world
and simultaneously its other. It is thus no surprise to find evidence of such a framework in several
strains of indigenous thought – including Maria ́ tegui’s (1995 [1928]) blending of Marxism with an
indigenous cosmology, the radical political epistemology of Mexico’s Zapatista movement (see
Mignolo, 2000b), and the political rhetoric and practice of indigenous leaders like Guatemala’s
Rigoberta Menchu ́ (Zimmerman, 2001).
In summary, postcolonial scholars of Latin America have endeavored not only to extend or
upgrade grand European theories by incorporating Latin American cases (cf. Centeno, 2002;
Centeno & Lo ́ pez-Alves, 2001), but more profoundly, to deconstruct the Eurocentric character of
many of these traditional theories. They have sought to provincialize the experience of the so-
called modern societies by foregrounding how Latin American experi- ences of domination and
violence were central to the development of European modernity – and to sociological
understandings of that modernity. At the same time, they have advanced a relational perspective,
while often advocating theorization from the margins.
This response to the postcolonial challenge by scholars of Latin America is profoundly significant in
itself. But we would like to take the analysis a step further. If we broaden our understanding of
postcolonial scholar- ship beyond just those scholars self-identifying as postcolonial theorists, an
even richer body of work opens up. The next section explores what some of these other literatures
stand to contribute to a more general program of postcolonial sociology – and to a postcolonial
sociology of Latin America.

Toward a Postcolonial Sociology: The View from Latin America 211

SOCIOLOGY OF LATIN AMERICA AND THE

POSTCOLONIAL CHALLENGE

The scholarship discussed above represents just a fraction of the work that has been done to make
sense of Latin America’s colonial and post-colonial history. While not engaging explicitly with
debates in postcolonial theory, a good portion of this other work also stands to make strong
contributions to a sociologically informed postcolonial perspective. Here, we would like to
highlight contributions across three intellectual domains: economic develop- ment, political
institutions and practices, and collective identities (specifically race, ethnicity, and nationalism).
While not all of the works reviewed here embrace all four elements of the postcolonial
perspective outlined above, they do exemplify at least some of the points – and all take what we
think of as a sociologically informed approach to their subject matter.
Economic Development

A first domain of research in which scholars of Latin America who were not explicitly engaged with
postcolonial theory have made significant contributions to a postcolonial sociology is the field of
development studies. The problem of development – and the burdens of occupying a dependent
position in the international economy – has been of central concern to Latin America intellectuals
over the course of the 20th century. Perhaps the most important strain of scholarship on this
problem is captured under the heading of ‘‘dependency theory.’’ Dependency theory represents a
profoundly important line of scholarship in Latin American social science; and its emphasis on the
global inequalities imposed by colonialism and economic dependence resonates strongly with the
work of many contem- porary postcolonial theorists. Thus, most of the present section will be
devoted to dependency theory (and particularly to the work of Latin American scholars), although
we will also briefly review more recent contributions to the study of economic informality. These
bodies of scholarship, despite being separated by a few decades and relying on different modes of
economic analysis, have raised new problems and proposed new theoretical bases for the
provincialization of traditional models of economic development.
The dialogue between postcolonial studies and political economy is not an easy one. Although
many postcolonial theorists of Latin America have acknowledged the contributions made by
dependency theory to the overall project of ‘‘decolonizing thought,’’ there are still rigid
epistemological barriers impeding a more thorough theoretical exchange. Dependency theory
(and other theories of political economy) usually rely either on a structuralist epistemology
(Furtado, 1977) or on a dialectical reading of Marxist theories of accumulation and exploitation
(Cardoso, 1972 [1964]), whereas postcolonial theories tend to favor several strains of post-
structuralism – stressing the connections between imperialism, on the one hand, and discursive
resistance and the politics of representation, on the other (Ahmad, 1997; Bartolovich & Lazarus,
2002; Kapoor, 2002).
This divide, however, is one that a postcolonial sociology must make efforts to bridge. Sociological
theories of underdevelopment and depen- dency are among the most important contributions
that Latin American scholars have made to the international field of sociology (see especially
Cardoso, 1972 [1964]; Cardoso & Faletto, 1979 [1968]; Furtado, 1977; Prebisch, 1950; Quijano,
1980). A significant proportion of this literature – most of it produced before the emergence of
postcolonial studies – questioned the premises of Eurocentric theories of modernization and
promoted new paradigms for understanding the causes and forms of underdevelopment on the
continent. It simultaneously highlighted the unequal relationships between Latin American
countries and central economies, and questioned the theoretical and political adequacy of the
models of development in vogue in the 1950s and 1960s.
The origins of dependency theory can be traced to three important sources. The first tributary
comprised the new economic theories elaborated in the 1950s by the economists of the United
Nations Economic
18
Dependency theory tried to reframe the sociological and economic interpretations of
underdevelopment by situating underdeveloped countries in the totality of world capitalist
relations, constituted during the colonial era and reinforced through unequal post-colonial
relationships. In so doing, dependency theorists also attempted to move beyond classic Marxist
theories of imperialism (Hilferding, 1981 [1910]; Lenin, 1937 [1917]; Luxemburg, 1951) that looked
almost exclusively at the social
17
the set of sociological studies undertaken by the so-called ‘‘Sa ̃ o Paulo school
Commission for Latin America (‘‘Cepal’’ in Spanish).
The second was
of sociology,’’ under the leadership of Florestan Fernandes. dependentistas were particularly
influenced by local readings of Marxism. These three strains converged in the most important
book of the tradition, Dependency and Development in Latin America, co-authored by Fernando
Henrique Cardoso and Enzo Faletto (1979 [1968]).
Finally, the
19

Toward a Postcolonial Sociology: The View from Latin America 213

classes of the imperialist nations, without regard to social dynamics in the colonies (see, e.g.,
Cardoso, 1977, p. 13). For example, Cardoso advanced a style of macro-sociology in which the
primary focus was on explaining the constitution and operation of the articulations between
internal and
20
In this form of analysis, the notions of ‘‘back- wardness’’ and ‘‘under-development’’ only acquire a
meaning when seen in a relational international perspective (Cardoso, 1975, p. 73, 1979) – leading
to an understanding of underdevelopment as a form of development and not a stage (Cardoso,
1975; Ianni, 2004 [1965]). Thus, Cardoso and Faletto’s classic text shows that dependency is the
result not of the ‘‘abstract ‘logic of capital accumulation’ butyof particular relationships and
struggles between social classes and groups at the international as well as at the local level’’
(Cardoso & Faletto, 1979 [1968], p. xvii; see also
external social actors.
Kapoor, 2002).
Dependency theory represents a critical touchstone, but one other
area of development scholarship warrants attention: recent work on the informal economy. Latin
Americanists have provided a critical con- tribution to the study of economic informality, in an
attempt to analyze the economy from its social and institutional margins. A growing literature
examines the nonregulated practices of social actors in their navigation of economic, political, and
urban spaces (Holston, 1999, 2009; Perlman, 2003; Portes, Castells, & Benton, 1989). Portes et al.
(1989), for example, have argued that informality exists within the scope of the state rather than
outside of it, since the state has the capacity to determine what is and is not formally recognized
as legitimate economic activity. And Holston (2009) has argued that informality and the illegal (or
unknown) ownership of land was a crucial mechanism for the settlement of urban populations in
Brazil throughout the 20th century (see also Caldeira, 2000; de Oliveira, 1972). This question of
informality, which many Latin Americanists have addressed, has been of central interest to
postcolonial theorists more generally – many of whom have looked into how poor people develop
solutions for advancing political claims or settle in and explore new and hostile environments,
against restrictions imposed through official political and legal channels (Chatterjee, 2006; Roy,
2009).
Together, this work on economic development provides important insights for a new postcolonial
sociology. It resonates with the principles of a sociologically informed postcolonial perspective,
broadly conceived, and represents an important effort to take material economic conditions
seriously in the study of post-colonial realities.

́
214 JOSE H. BORTOLUCI AND ROBERT S. JANSEN
Political Institutions and Practices
A second domain in which scholars of Latin America have made significant contributions
exemplifying a sociologically informed postcolonial perspec- tive revolves around the study of
political institutions and practices. With some exceptions (e.g., Coronil, 1997), postcolonial studies
has rarely attended to politics at the macro-institutional level – tending instead to focus on the
political dimensions of civil society and discursive formations. But from research on democracy
and authoritarianism, to more recent scholarship on the state and social movements, Latin
Americanists have countered Eurocentric narratives of political development, asserted the
distinctiveness of Latin American political institutions and practices vis-a` - vis those of Europe,
explored the value of a relational approach to political analysis, and attended to social experience
at the political margins – all contributions that share an affinity with the core assumptions of a
postcolonial sociology.
Building in many ways on the contributions of dependency theory, an earlier generation of Latin
American scholars (again, preceding the invention of postcolonial studies per se) confronted the
supposed under- development of Latin America political institutions – arguing for the importance
of understanding the region’s politics on their own terms, in light of Latin American countries’
colonial and post-colonial histories. The rise of populist regimes in the mid-20th century in
Argentina, Brazil, and elsewhere – which were difficult to explain with the dominant European
theories – led, for example, to new theoretical work by sociologists like Gino Germani (1963),
Torcuato Di Tella (1965), and others on the social underpinnings of such regimes. These populism
scholars argued that the formation of populist social coalitions, embodied in populist parties,
resulted from a ‘‘revolution of rising expectations’’ and ‘‘status incon- gruence’’ in Latin America’s
specific context of peripheral dependent development (ibid.). This work initiated a long debate in
Latin Americanist circles about the specificity and determinants of this uniquely Latin American
political form (for a recent review, see Jansen, 2011).
Similarly, scholars of Latin American democracy have more recently made notable contributions
that provincialize Eurocentric models of political development and democratization. Although the
general consensus has been that democracy – by European standards – emerged quite late given
the region’s long post-colonial republican history (see Stephens, 1989), some scholars have probed
the Latin American post-colonial past for evidence of earlier democratic practice. Some – most
notably the sociologist

Toward a Postcolonial Sociology: The View from Latin America 215

Carlos Forment (2003) – have suggested that preliminary evidence of democratic practice can be
found amidst the oligarchical and exclusionary politics of 19th century Latin America. In an
intriguing theoretical twist, Forment considers what Alexis De Tocqueville would have discovered
had he found himself immersed in the political culture of 19th century Mexico or Peru, rather than
that of the United States (which had informed his classic study, Democracy in America, 2000
[1835]). From the perspective of the United States (and of Tocqueville’s actual study), 19th century
Latin America appears to be devoid of civil society and democratic practice. But a more subtle
reading of historical experience – provided by Forment, and to which Tocqueville would have
presumably had access if he had subjected Latin America to the close scrutiny that he gave to the
United States – discovers embryonic forms of democratic practice in Latin American civic life that
were quite different from those of the North American context, but that nonetheless represented
a form of democratic civil society (Forment, 2003). This suggests that scholars of post-colonial
contexts must question western narratives of political progress if they are to identify and
understand the lived historical realities of such settings.
Finally, recent events in Latin America have fueled scholarship on how neoliberalism, globalization,
and a post-Cold War geopolitical reality have led to new repertoires of resistance that combine
local and global vocabularies, traditions, and practices. For example, the neoliberal reforms of
post-colonial corporatist social and political arrangements spurred waves of austerity protest in
some countries (Walton, 2001), while playing an important role in prompting a revival of
indigenous movements in others (Yashar, 2005). At the same time, such indigenous movements
often built on transnational relationships and articulated with broader antiglobaliza- tion and
environmental movements (Brysk, 2000; Conklin & Graham, 1995; Johnston, 2000). Finally, as Cold
War rationales for the United States’ overt and covert support for anti-leftist authoritarian regimes
gave way to a more politically hands off foreign policy in the 1990s and 2000s, a new wave of
leftist and indigenous parties have gained a foothold in the region (Cameron & Hershberg, 2010;
Lee Van Cott, 2005). In emphasizing the counter-hegemonic agency of such subaltern groups and
movements, such social scientific scholarship strongly resonates with the critical interventions of
postcolonial theorists.
While serving as a critique of Eurocentric models of political develop- ment, this research
highlights the constraints and opportunities provided by the region’s unique, early experience of
Iberian colonialism and post- colonial domination by Great Britain and the United States.
Continuing

́
216 JOSE H. BORTOLUCI AND ROBERT S. JANSEN
dependent economic development and hierarchical social relationships – and increasing cross-
national communication between (elite and margin- alized) social actors in these post-colonial
states – have shaped the region’s politics to this day; but they have also opened up possibilities for
combinations of alternative political practices that deeply challenge the western repertoire of
contentious politics.
Collective Identities
A third domain of recent Latin Americanist scholarship that might serve as a jumping off point for a
sociologically informed postcolonial perspective has centered on studies of the social and political
construction of collective identities – especially race, ethnicity, and nationalism. Historically in
Latin America – both in terms of social relations and political practice – the categories of race,
ethnicity, and nation have been so inextricably intertwined that it is methodologically impossible
(not to mention empirically misguided) to treat any one in isolation from the others. We thus
consider the three categories jointly (cf. Brubaker, 2009; Wimmer, 2008). A growing number of
social scientists have engaged with the issues of colonial and post-colonial collective identities in
ways that are attuned to colonial legacies and are critical of European narratives of identity
formation – while taking a relational perspective and maintaining a sensitivity to the experiences
of marginalized groups.
This central area of investigation for postcolonial scholars and social scientists is part of a longer
intellectual and political history in Latin America, where political thinkers and state-makers have
long been preoccupied with questions of collective identity. The social and political construction of
coherent national communities in these states was rendered particularly problematic by the fact
that most would have to subsume a unique triadic relationship between Iberian ‘‘whites,’’ African
slaves and former slaves, and formerly subjugated native peoples – a relationship that was in
many cases further complicated by immigration from southern Europe, North Africa, the Middle
East, and East Asia (Cook Martı ́ n, 2008; Lesser, 1999; Moya, 1998). This political-demographic fact
prompted ongoing debates – among academics, but also in the civic and political spheres – about
mestizaje (or racial–ethnic ‘‘mixing’’), in the countries of Spanish Latin America (de la Cadena,
2000; Gould, 1998; Sanjine ́ s, 2004), and about ‘‘racial democracy’’ in Brazil (Bailey, 2004; Degler,
1971; Fry, 2000; Guimara ̃ es, 2002; Telles, 2004), that have served different political
Toward a Postcolonial Sociology: The View from Latin America 217
purposes at different historical moments over the past two centuries. Some positions in these
debates about the constitution of a national ‘‘people’’ involved explicit rejections of Eurocentric
models, imposed by the colonizing powers and perpetuated by European and North American
intellectuals in the post-colonial period; but other positions maintained – or even expanded upon
– dominant European frameworks.
The comparative contrast provided by Latin America’s particular
configuration of racial, ethnic, and national categories has played an
important role in denaturalizing (i.e., provincializing) North American and
European racial ideologies – a contribution that should be of particular note
to postcolonial scholars. A central point of criticism has been the use of
‘‘imported’’ ethno–racial categories – in particular, the common tendency to
universalize a biracial model premised on the US experience. For example,
Pierre Bourdieu and Loı c̈ Wacquant (1999) have criticized what they
considered to be the imposition of a foreign binary race model in studies of
Brazilian society by North American scholars (and Latin American scholars
trained in the United States), with the support of US foundations; and their
argument prompted a number of responses by American and Brazilian
21
While many race scholars have highlighted the critical role that political institutions have played in
the configuration of racial, ethnic, and national categories in Latin America (see Centeno, 2002; de
la Fuente, 2001; Loveman, 2009; Marx, 1998), some recent scholars have also addressed the
formation of identities from the margins of these post-colonial societies. A growing number of
social scientists have focused on the central role of black and indigenous movements in reshaping
the social relations of the continent and inserting new themes into the democratic agendas of
these societies. A rapidly expanding literature, for example, has described the growing
participation of the black movements in the Brazilian (Costa, 2006; Guimara ̃ es, 2002; Hanchard,
1998) and Colombian (Paschel, 2010) public spheres and their influence in reshaping race relations
in these countries. The roles played by subaltern actors and their movements in the construction
of race, ethnicity, and nation in Latin America has likewise been emphasized by Latin American
postcolonial theorists, as the emergence of such movements contests linear histories of political
development and traditional views on the practices, languages, and symbols in which ‘‘modern’’
public spheres are embedded.
This debate attests to the difficulties (both analytical and political) involved in attempting to
conduct a comparative analysis of racial domination that adequately grasps the changing character
and multiple political and cultural uses of racialized discourses and practices.
social scientists.

́
218 JOSE H. BORTOLUCI AND ROBERT S. JANSEN
Some recent work on such black and indigenous cultures and movements has emphasized their
transnational nature, challenging the choice of the nation-state as the primary unit of analysis – in
clear affinity with a postcolonial sociological program. Sansone (2003), for example, building on
the work of Paul Gilroy (1993), has elaborated a sophisticated analysis of the transnational cultural
circuits of the black diaspora. He has shown that, despite the fact that many symbolic and cultural
artifacts circulate among the black youth of different ‘‘Atlantic’’ societies (particularly Brazil,
United States, and the Netherlands), the local mobilization of such resources is contingent upon
the history of race relations in each locality. Other researchers have recently looked at how the
circulation of people in different national racial contexts informs their understandings of race.
Wendy Roth has studied the constitution and transformation of pan-ethnic identities as a
consequence of migration among Domenicans and Puerto Ricans (Roth, 2009; for the Brazilian
case, see Joseph, 2011). Such work on transnationalism has placed studies of Latin American
collective identities at the forefront of critiques of ‘‘methodological nationalism’’ (Wimmer &
Glick-Schiller, 2002).
All told, these lines of research stand to contribute to a broader program of postcolonial sociology.
Many question the universalization (whether for analytical or political reasons) of any model of
race relations – a critique that can be read as a conscious act of provincialization of models
premised on race relations elsewhere (especially the United States). They also stress the role of
the transnational connections and circuits involved in the dissemination of racial identities and
political demands. Finally, they pay due attention to the politicized identity claims of subaltern
actors.
The sociological scholarship on economic development, politics, and collective identities discussed
here attests to both the need and the potential for a more conscious integration of Latin
Americanist social science and postcolonial studies. To be clear, this does not mean that we are
claiming that the sociology of Latin America is already postcolonial. Indeed, some of the works in
this field still occasionally slip into linear models of political and economic development,
methodological nationalism, and the unproble- matic transference of Eurocentric concepts and
theoretical models. Also, many sociologists have not yet devoted enough attention to the power
dynamics involved in the production of knowledge about post-colonial societies and to the colonial
nature of the historical records – particularly as materialized in the archives, but also commonly
present in the ethnographic encounter. Furthermore, the contributions of sociologists to the
under- standing of Latin America have rarely been accompanied by a systematic

Toward a Postcolonial Sociology: The View from Latin America 219

rethinking of the key canonical categories used to make sense of post- colonial realities – a crucial
exercise for the project of a postcolonial sociology. Nevertheless, these strains of sociological
scholarship attend to the often neglected historical specificities of the Latin American colonial and
post-colonial experience vis-a` -vis those of other world regions; and they usefully reflect on the
asymmetric nature of international power relations and their consequences for understanding the
historical experience of post- colonial societies. These works resonate, at least to a certain extent,
with the arguments promoted by other Latin Americanist scholars who have been more explicitly
engaged with debates in postcolonial studies.
CONCLUSION
This article proposes a tentative frame for a creative integration between the social sciences and
postcolonial studies, with a particular focus on Latin American societies. Building on earlier strains
of Latin American critical thought, the postcolonial scholarship on Latin America has attended to
the specificities of the colonial and post-colonial histories of Latin American societies in its
engagement with postcolonial theory. It has argued that the analysis and critique of a colonial,
Eurocentric imagination should be pushed further back in time, from the 18th to the 16th century
– to when Iberian colonial officials first came into contact with the indigenous peoples of Latin
America and introduced modern forms of slavery. It has also argued that Latin America is an
important site for examining the representational and discursive practices that were developed for
and through the operation of early European colonialism. Following this observation, it has shown
that – much more than simply fueling the primitive accumulation of capital for European
industrialization – Iberian colonialism acted as a proving ground for the development of the
modern techniques of control that accompanied capitalist development. Further, Latin American
postcolonial scholarship has illustrated how the distinct Latin American colonial experience shaped
particular identities on the parts of both Iberian colonizers and colonial subjects in the region. And
finally, it has been at the forefront of new attempts to ‘‘decolonize thinking,’’ through the
consideration of the distinct historical trajectories of Latin American states and societies. These
contributions are themselves incredibly significant and deserve to be taken seriously by
postcolonial studies, as well as by other scholars interested in developing a new sociology of
colonialism and post- colonialism.

́
220 JOSE H. BORTOLUCI AND ROBERT S. JANSEN
But in addition to these advances made by overtly postcolonial strands of Latin Americanist
thought, the sociology of Latin America has provided examples of how comparative critical insights
might be better incorporated into the social sciences. For more than 60 years, there have been
important traditions in sociology (albeit often at the margins of the discipline) that have critiqued
modernization theory, worked through the challenges of regional comparison, transnationalism,
and historicization, and taken culture quite seriously. These traditions have informed much of the
sociological work on Latin America, by Southern and Northern scholars alike. Such work stands to
contribute a great deal to a new program of postcolonial sociology – a program that we have
made preliminary efforts to sketch here.
Finally, this article also suggests a few ways in which a postcolonial sociology might inform new
scholarship on Latin America. Substantively, it encourages scholars of cultural politics at the micro-
level to attend to the broader social relations and institutions in which these are embedded – both
at the national and international levels. Historically, it echoes recent suggestions by Latin
Americanist historians and historical sociologists that understanding 19th century structures and
events is critical if we want to comprehend adequately the region’s post-colonial historical
trajectories. And methodologically, it highlights the usefulness of adopting a compara- tive
perspective. This means continuing to compare Latin American countries with those of Europe and
North America; but equally important is to compare Latin American with other post-colonial cases,
and to pursue innovative comparisons within the region. Overall, the strongest Latin Americanist
scholarship has been moving in these directions for some time now. But a reinvigoration and
broadening of this effort would go a long way toward the eventual development of a mature
program of postcolonial sociology.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The authors would like to thank Peter Demant, Fatma Mu ̈ ge Go ̈ c-ek, Christopher Heaney, Wes
Hiers, Angela Jamison, Joa ̃ o E. Maia, Isaac Reed, Margaret Somers, George Steinmetz, and
Matthias vom Hau, as well as participants in the University of Michigan’s Social Theory Workshop
and the editor and anonymous reviewers at Political Power and Social Theory, for their useful
comments on previous drafts. Jose ́ acknowledges support from Capes/Fulbright Doctoral
Fellowship Program. Robert is grateful to

Toward a Postcolonial Sociology: The View from Latin America 221 the Michigan Society of Fellows
for providing a stimulating intellectual
environment and for the valuable gift of time.